An eyewitness account

[observer]

The number of Jews killed by Wehrmacht units in the Soviet Union according to these sources is ca. 60,000.

Maybe you you would tend to agree that it is not unreasonable to assume that each perpetrator accounted for more than one victim on average. So what would this tell us? Some 30,000 Wehrmacht perpetrators (1:2) or maybe some 20,000 (1:3) or maybe just some 10,000 (1:6). My point is that direct Wehrmacht involvement in the Holocaust would be rather restricted to certain units and that in that respect I am still curious to learn what you meant by "often".

As a matter of fact, the historians´ commission that critically reviewed the first Wehrmacht exhibit (the one Hannes Heer organized in 1995 before it was closed down in 1999, he is the author you just quoted )- upon invitation of its sponsor Prof. Reemtsma - explicitly based itself on Gerlach´s findings that in Bjelarus the majority of the (Wehrmacht) killings of Jews could be traced to 707 ID (Feldkommandanturen 250 Baranowicze and 812 Minsk with several Ortskommandanturen subordinated) in the rear area ("rückwärtiges Heeresgebiet")

The killings by Wehrmacht troops are less a matter of individual soldiers having joined Einsatzgruppen or police formations than of Wehrmacht units having butchered Jews on their own in the context of "anti-partisan" operations, by the way.

Actually, I am not sure, if your sources validate this distinction.
A significant share of those murders committed by Wehrmacht troups can be attributed to Feldgendarmerie and Geheime Feldpolizei, both types of units cooperating by the nature of their deadly work often with SS-Gendarmerie/Ordnungspolizei. Again, 707 ID requested - and received - police units (Reservepolizeibataillon 11 (Lechthaler) as well as Lithuanian "Schutzmannschaften".

But for the sake of your argument, let us take a closer look at which Wehrmacht units participated from 1942 to 1944 (Schenkendorff´s corresponding order dates from August 1942) in so called "Grossaktionen" to crush partisan activity (such actions were always accompanied by Waffen-SS, Einsatzgruppen Sipo/SD and Ordnungspolizei). I guess you can accept, if I draw on tables contained in the catalogue of the new Wehrmacht exhibit (since 2001, p. 449 f.). Btw, these tables include what you called "tote Zonen". Subtracting all Einsatzkommandos, SS, and other police units, I found the following Wehrmacht units left (not all victims of these actions were Jews, so it is futile to reconcile the 60,000 number with this table):

707 ID, IR 102, Sicherungsbattailon 122 and 473, 286 Sicherungsdiv, 203 Sicherungsdiv, Sicherungsregt 613, 201 Sicherungsdiv, parts of 8 PD, 454 Sicherungsdivision, units of XXXXI Pz Korps, 391 Feldausbildungsdivision, Sicherungsbtl Korueck 532 (9th army), 95 ID, several bataillons of Wehrmacht commander "Weissruthenien" (Belarus) - equivalent with commander of 707 ID.


My assessment is:
The Wehrmacht´s direct involvement in shooting Jews cannot be denied, but it was rather limited to certain rear units and in terms of numbers of victims it was far less significant than the deaths of some 3.3 mio Soviet POWs dying in German (Wehrmacht) custody as well as a couple of million civilians starving to death in the occupied territories.

By no way am I led to believe that the majority of the some 19 mio men enlisted in the Wehrmacht were directly involved in killing Jews. This conclusion however does not touch upon the systematic indirect role of the Wehrmacht in the Holocaust (e.g. by drawing up lists of the local Jewish population or by providing logistical support to the Einsatzkommandos).

So, if I am challenging phrases like "often", this has nothing to do with any sort of holocaust denial, to put this into proportion.

[Roberto]

The number of Jews killed by Wehrmacht units in the Soviet Union according to these sources is ca. 60,000.

Maybe you you would tend to agree that it is not unreasonable to assume that each perpetrator accounted for more than one victim on average. So what would this tell us? Some 30,000 Wehrmacht perpetrators (1:2) or maybe some 20,000 (1:3) or maybe just some 10,000 (1:6). My point is that direct Wehrmacht involvement in the Holocaust would be rather restricted to certain units and that in that respect I am still curious to learn what you meant by "often".

As often as required to butcher 60,000 people.

My assessment is:
The Wehrmacht´s direct involvement in shooting Jews cannot be denied, but it was rather limited to certain rear units and in terms of numbers of victims it was far less significant than the deaths of some 3.3 mio Soviet POWs dying in German (Wehrmacht) custody as well as a couple of million civilians starving to death in the occupied territories.

That's also my assessment.

By no way am I led to believe that the majority of the some 19 mio men enlisted in the Wehrmacht were directly involved in killing Jews.

Neither am I. In fact the number of German soldiers actively involved in crimes against prisoners of war and the civilian population (Jewish or non-Jewish) in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union was rather marginal (no more than 5 % of all servicemen according to Rolf-Dieter Müller, IIRC). Had this not been so, hardly a human being would have been left alive in those areas.

This conclusion however does not touch upon the systematic indirect role of the Wehrmacht in the Holocaust (e.g. by drawing up lists of the local Jewish population or by providing logistical support to the Einsatzkommandos).

That was indeed their main contribution. I think not even Heer would disagree.

[observer]

Roberto,

I feel we agree on practically all major issues in this topic. Please allow some more remarks nevertheless:

As often as required to butcher 60,000 people.

1. That´s evading the question, but would you at least agree that it took no more than one perpetrator per victim on average?

2. (true curiosity of mine) What do we have to understand by `butchering´other than shooting? That term sounds like mutilation or so - I have no doubt about the brutality of the murders (including burning farms with people inside), but my present information on the partisan topic is that in most cases firing squads shot ´suspects´. Is that not correct ?

In fact the number of German soldiers actively involved in crimes against prisoners of war and the civilian population (Jewish or non-Jewish) in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union was rather marginal (no more than 5 % of all servicemen according to Rolf-Dieter Mueller, IIRC). Had this not been so, hardly a human being would have been left alive in those areas.

1. (concerning your last sentence) Not necessarily so, e.g. even if every single Wehrmacht soldier had killed about 2 civilians on average (we both know that´s not the way it happened, but just for the sake of the argument). To provide a proof, you now indirectly seem to untilize my own former assumption that probably each of the perpetrators were to blame for more than just one victim on average (which lies in the nature of firing squads) in combination with the cumulative high number of Wehrmacht personnel at the Eastern front over time (actually I have no precise idea how many of the 19mio passed along the eastern front at some time or another).

2. 5% then would still be a f***ing whole lot! Assume that 12 mio overall ever served at the Eastern Front: 5% =600,000 or ten times as many as the number of Jewish victims, you quote from Heer! - which brings me back to my introductory question Apparently this is a conservative estimate by Professor Mueller - including all sorts of atrocities (e.g. burning of houses without killing people, stealing cattle etc.) and not just the 60,000 Jews killed. I remember faintly that AGC shot some 130,000 Civilians (jews and gentiles) in the partisan context between 41 and 44, is that about right? -This number would tie in with the "Grossaktionen" I mentioned recently.

3. Do you still remember the book (also German titles welcome) Prof. Mueller has published that analysis in? (just out of curiosity, because I might want to use that elsewhere for reference) ?

[Roberto]

As often as required to butcher 60,000 people.

1. That´s evading the question, but would you at least agree that it took no more than one perpetrator per victim on average?

Of course. And I’m not avoiding the question, just pointing out that the term “often” is subjective and open to many interpretations.

2. (true curiosity of mine) What do we have to understand by `butchering´other than shooting? That term sounds like mutilation or so - I have no doubt about the brutality of the murders (including burning farms with people inside), but my present information on the partisan topic is that in most cases firing squads shot ´suspects´. Is that not correct ?

Lining people up in front of a ditch or in the central square of a village and shooting them at close range with rifles and automatic weapons is butchering them, AFAIC. Those were the methods mostly applied by the Einsatzgruppen and other German formations when butchering Jews and by anti-partisan units when butchering the inhabitants of whole villages in “partisan-infested” areas. In the latter case, the method of locking people inside barns and churches and burning them alive was also applied – often enough for a Nazi official to complain about it:

Lohse, bemoaning the fact that many of the killed would have been suitable for forced labor in the Reich, wrote to Rosenberg enclosing Kube’s report and stating:

‘It should not be ignored in this connection that in view of the difficulties in making oneself understood, as generally in such clean-up operations, it is very hard to distinguish friend from foe. Nevertheless, it should be possible to avoid atrocities and to bury those who have been liquidated. To lock men, women and children into barns and to set fire to these, does not appear to be a suitable method of combating bands, even if it is desired to exterminate the population. This method is not worthy of the German cause and hurts our reputation severely. I am asking that you take the necessary action.’

Source of quote:

Matthew Cooper, The Phantom War, pages 97 and following.

Emphasis is mine.

In fact the number of German soldiers actively involved in crimes against prisoners of war and the civilian population (Jewish or non-Jewish) in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union was rather marginal (no more than 5 % of all servicemen according to Rolf-Dieter Mueller, IIRC). Had this not been so, hardly a human being would have been left alive in those areas.

1. (concerning your last sentence) Not necessarily so, e.g. even if every single Wehrmacht soldier had killed about 2 civilians on average (we both know that´s not the way it happened, but just for the sake of the argument). To provide a proof, you now indirectly seem to untilize my own former assumption that probably each of the perpetrators were to blame for more than just one victim on average (which lies in the nature of firing squads) in combination with the cumulative high number of Wehrmacht personnel at the Eastern front over time (actually I have no precise idea how many of the 19mio passed along the eastern front at some time or another).

5% then would still be a f***ing whole lot! Assume that 12 mio overall ever served at the Eastern Front: 5% =600,000 or ten times as many as the number of Jewish victims, you quote from Heer! - which brings me back to my introductory question Apparently this is a conservative estimate by Professor Mueller - including all sorts of atrocities (e.g. burning of houses without killing people, stealing cattle etc.) and not just the 60,000 Jews killed. I remember faintly that AGC shot some 130,000 Civilians (jews and gentiles) in the partisan context between 41 and 44, is that about right? -This number would tie in with the "Grossaktionen" I mentioned recently.

Müller’s figure clearly refers to all kinds of atrocities, i.e. against prisoners of war, Jews or non-Jewish civilians, as I pointed out myself. My source is an interview that Rolf-Dieter Müller gave to the news magazine Der Spiegel:

No. 23/1999
"Gegen Kritik immun"

Der Potsdamer Historiker Rolf-Dieter Müller über die Wehrmacht im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Thesen des Hamburger Instituts für Sozialforschung
Müller, 50, ist Historiker am Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamt in Potsdam und Mitherausgeber des Werkes über "Die Wehrmacht. Mythos und Realität". Er übt Kritik an der Ausstellung "Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944", die das Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung derzeit in Hamburg zeigt.

SPIEGEL: Herr Müller, die Wehrmachtsausstellung des Hamburger Instituts für Sozialforschung war von Anfang an umstritten. Die Befürworter sagen, es handle sich um die wichtigste Ausstellung seit langem, die Kritiker nennen sie windig und unwissenschaftlich. Wozu zählen Sie sich?
Müller: Ich zähle mich zu den Kritikern. Die Schwäche der Ausstellung besteht darin, daß sie die Besucher mit einer Fülle schockierender Bilder von der Ostfront konfrontiert. Damit läßt sich zwar emotionale Wirkung erzielen, aber eine Erklärung für Greuel und Hinrichtungen in der Ukraine, Weißrußland oder Serbien liefern sie allein noch nicht.
SPIEGEL: Die Ausstellung will damit den Vernichtungskrieg der Wehrmacht im Osten und im Südosten Europas dokumentieren.
Müller: Aber etliche Fotos zeigen Exekutionen oder Leichen, die der Wehrmacht nicht zuzuordnen sind.
SPIEGEL: Wem denn dann?
Müller: Ein ungarischer Kollege hat bei Bildern aus Stari Becej nachgewiesen, daß nicht die Wehrmacht dort Erschießungen vorgenommen hat, sondern die ungarische Armee. Die Wehrmacht war zum entsprechenden Zeitpunkt nicht in dieser Gegend stationiert. Und die Ausstellung zeigt auch Fotos aus Galizien, auf denen Opfer des sowjetischen NKWD, nicht aber Opfer der Wehrmacht zu sehen sind. Das hat mein polnischer Kollege Bogdan Musial herausgefunden.
SPIEGEL: Das sind doch nur wenige der weit über 1000 gezeigten Fotos und Bilder der Ausstellung.
Müller: Ja, schon, doch gibt es auch einen gravierenden inhaltlichen Einwand: Über drei Viertel der Bilder sind Aufnahmen aus dem Partisanenkrieg. Die Toten im Partisanenkrieg an der Ostfront sind nicht unbedingt zu den Opfern von Kriegsverbrechen zu rechnen.
SPIEGEL: Die deutsche Wehrmacht hat im Partisanenkrieg über eine Million Menschen getötet - keine Verbrechen der Wehrmacht?
Müller: So schwer es auch fallen mag, muß man doch differenzieren zwischen dem Holocaust und dem militärischen Partisanenkrieg. Die Bekämpfung von Partisanen und Aufständischen in einem besetzten Gebiet ist in vielen Kriegen des 20. Jahrhunderts militärische Normalität gewesen; das hat es zu allen Zeiten gegeben, bei den Franzosen in Algerien ebenso wie bei den Amerikanern in Vietnam.
SPIEGEL: Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten war keine militärische Normalität.
Müller: Die Partisanen haben zweifellos das Recht gehabt, ihre Heimat zu verteidigen. Andererseits durften Wehrmachtssoldaten nicht zu Freiwild werden, sie besaßen das Recht zur Selbstverteidigung. Sühnemaßnahmen wie Geiselerschießungen galten allgemein als Kriegsbrauch.
SPIEGEL: Die Maßnahmen der Wehrmacht gingen weit über den Kriegsbrauch hinaus.
Müller: Das waren dann zweifelsohne Kriegsverbrechen. Die Ausstellungsmacher, vor allem Hannes Heer, setzen sich jedoch über eine notwendige Unterscheidung hinweg. 1941 und 1942, in der ersten Phase des Kriegs im Osten, nutzte die SS den Partisanenkrieg, um die Wehrmacht in die Ermordung der jüdischen Bevölkerung hineinzuziehen.
SPIEGEL: Um Fotos aus dem Partisanenkrieg richtig einordnen zu können, müssen also die Umstände und Hintergründe des Geschehens bekannt sein?
Müller: Bei einem beträchtlichen Anteil der Fotos sind weder die Umstände noch die Vorgeschichte geklärt. Man weiß nicht, wo sie aufgenommen wurden und was zuvor geschehen ist.
SPIEGEL: Ausstellungsmacher Heer argumentiert, es sei "nicht so wichtig, ob auf Fotos der Ort, das Datum, das Geschehnis notiert" sei. Wichtiger sei die Mentalität der Wehrmachtssoldaten, die grinsend, lachend oder gelassen vor Gehenkten stünden - das seien Dokumente der Barbarei.
Müller: Da frage ich mich, woher Heer die Mentalität der Soldaten kennt. Eine Handvoll Feldpostbriefe oder Bilder von feixenden Soldaten vor Gehenkten genügen mir nicht als Beleg für barbarische Gesinnung. Ich bin überzeugt, daß Schaulustige bei einem schweren Unfall auf der Autobahn ähnlich aussehen, daß sich Fotos von ihnen ähnlich interpretieren lassen.
SPIEGEL: Können Fotos grundsätzlich nicht als Dokumente für historische Vorgänge herangezogen werden?
Müller: Fotos taugen zum Illustrieren zweifelsfreier Tatbestände. Aber wenn die Herkunft und die Umstände von Fotos derart umstritten sind, kann man nicht solche weitreichenden Schlußfolgerungen ziehen, wie es Hannes Heer oder auch Jan Philipp Reemtsma, der Chef des Hamburger Instituts, tut. Wir wissen einfach oft nicht, ob die Soldaten auf den Fotos Täter oder befohlene Zuschauer sind, ob sie sensationslüsterne Gaffer oder mordgierige Gesellen sind.
SPIEGEL: Die These der Ausstellung lautet, die Wehrmacht sei eine verbrecherische Organisation. Teilen Sie die These?
Müller: Nein, die Wehrmacht, das haben schon die Richter in den Nürnberger Prozessen festgestellt, ist im Gegensatz zur SS oder zur Gestapo keine verbrecherische Organisation.
SPIEGEL: Die Wehrmacht war militärisches Instrument in einem verbrecherischen Krieg. Sie ist für den Tod von 3,3 Millionen sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen mitverantwortlich, hat der SS beim Holocaust zugearbeitet und teilweise selbst gemordet.
Müller: Das ist richtig. Die Wehrmacht war integraler Bestandteil eines verbrecherischen Systems. Es ist ja sicher nicht ungewöhnlich, daß eine Armee den Vorgaben der Staatsführung folgt, selbst wenn diese Staatsführung eine verbrecherische Politik betreibt. Dafür hat sich auch die Rote Armee hergegeben, ohne daß sie deshalb als verbrecherische Organisation bezeichnet würde.
SPIEGEL: Aber hat die Wehrmacht nicht besondere Schuld im Vernichtungskrieg auf sich geladen?
Müller: Man muß unterscheiden zwischen der Wehrmachtsführung, die zur Machtergreifung Hitlers beitrug, Generälen wie Keitel und Manstein, die seinen Krieg führten, die verbrecherische Befehle mit dem Anspruch auf bedingungslosen Gehorsam gaben, und den blutjungen Soldaten, die nicht wußten, was außerhalb ihres Gebietskreises geschah.
SPIEGEL: Wie viele einfache Wehrmachtssoldaten, die an der Ostfront gekämpft haben, waren an Kriegsverbrechen schuldig ?
Müller: Auf diese Frage können die Historiker noch keine definitive Antwort geben. Über Italien wissen wir, daß schätzungsweise 5 von 100 deutschen Soldaten in Kriegsverbrechen verwickelt gewesen sind. An der Ostfront ist der prozentuale Anteil eher noch geringer.
SPIEGEL: Also kein Generalverdacht gegen Wehrmachtssoldaten?
Müller: Nein, vor allem nicht gegen diejenigen, die jetzt noch leben. Die meisten waren Anfang zwanzig, als sie aus dem Krieg kamen. Die Ausstellungsmacher erwarten offenbar von ihnen, daß sie sich jetzt als Generation schuldig bekennen. Das ist unfair und auch anmaßend, wenn man bedenkt, daß diese Generation die Bundesrepublik aufgebaut hat.
SPIEGEL: Weshalb haben deutsche Fachhistoriker wie Sie die Kritik an der Ausstellung nicht früher geäußert?
Müller: Am Anfang hatte die Ausstellung so geringe Resonanz, daß kritische Stellungnahmen nicht beachtet wurden. Außerdem bestand und besteht immer die Gefahr, Beifall von der falschen Seite zu erhalten - wer gegen die Ausstellung war, wurde ja von den Rechten einverleibt. Schließlich haben viele der Kollegen, vor allem im Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamt, jahrelang die Wehrmachtsgeschichte kritisch aufgearbeitet; ich habe ganze Ordner voller Zuschriften und Hetzartikel, in denen wir als Wehrkraftzersetzer und fünfte Kolonne Moskaus beschimpft wurden. Und wir Historiker unterscheiden uns im Umgang mit der Geschichte von den Populisten, die Botschaften verbreiten wollen.
SPIEGEL: Der Erfolg der Ausstellung wuchs mit der Kontroverse über ihre Thesen.
Müller: Der Eklat in München, als Peter Gauweiler 1997 gegen die Entscheidung des Stadtparlaments agitierte, die Ausstellung im Rathaus zu zeigen, weckte den antifaschistischen Grundreflex in dieser Gesellschaft; die Ausstellung wurde deshalb gegen jede Kritik immunisiert. Die Bundestagsdebatte im März 1997, übrigens eine Sternstunde des Parlaments, sprach die Ausstellung endgültig heilig. Jeder Kritiker riskierte danach, an den rechtsradikalen Rand gedrückt zu werden. Zudem verklagen die Ausstellungsmacher gern ihre Kritiker.
SPIEGEL: Äußert sich da der Neid des Fachhistorikers über den Erfolg der Außenseiter aus dem Hamburger Institut? Es gibt ja viele Wissenschaftler, die dicke, differenzierte Bücher schreiben, und es gibt die populären Vereinfacher wie Daniel Goldhagen oder eben die Wehrmachtsausstellung, die ein breites Publikum finden.
Müller: Diese Arbeitsteilung kann ich nicht akzeptieren. Die Ausstellung suggeriert ein Gesamtbild über die Wehrmacht, das undifferenziert und schief ist. Es wird Jahre an Arbeit kosten, dies wieder zurechtzurücken.
INTERVIEW: GERHARD SPÖRL

3. Do you still remember the book (also German titles welcome) Prof. Mueller has published that analysis in? (just out of curiosity, because I might want to use that elsewhere for reference) ?

See above.

[observer]

double post, sorry

[observer]

Roberto,

thanks for taking the time! The interview was incredibly important for me to read as I now better understand quotes from Heer s supporters against Mueller s institution.

SPIEGEL: Wie viele einfache Wehrmachtssoldaten, die an der Ostfront gekämpft haben, waren an Kriegsverbrechen schuldig ?

Müller: Auf diese Frage können die Historiker noch keine definitive Antwort geben. Über Italien wissen wir, daß schätzungsweise 5 von 100 deutschen Soldaten in Kriegsverbrechen verwickelt gewesen sind. An der Ostfront ist der prozentuale Anteil eher noch geringer.

In this quote, Mueller actually said that while historians could not really tell overall, in Italy approximately 5% (of the lower levels) are known to have been involved in war crimes, while at the Eastern Front the percentage must have been even lower (i.e. than 5%).

Mueller s (co-editor) book on the Wehrmacht myth (1999 - appearance shortly before the interview) is considered one of the most - if not the most - scientific descriptions of the Wehrmacht around at the moment. The man itself has an excellent reputation among other historians.

I have no reason to dismiss his educated guesses as just quoted. And I thank you for having delineated the order of the problem here.

Let me conclude as follows: 60,000 civilian victims are 60,000 too many (and the same goes for any number of non-Jewish victims of the Wehrmacht of course). However, a head-count rate of < 5% involvement in war crimes (a percentage incidentally very similar to the ratio of the 60,000 Jewish victims of the Wehrmacht mentioned by H.Heer over way over a million Einsatzgruppen and police unit Jewish victims in the USSR) - at least to my understanding of such adverbs - does not really qualify for the notion often .


Best regards,

observer

[Alex F.]

Looks like people are beating their heads against the wall again.

Roberto, all I get from your statistics and bombast is that you think it was alright for the Russians to act as they did, because the Germans did first.

Hardly an upstanding argument.

Alex

[observer]

Roberto, all I get from your statistics and bombast is that you think it was alright for the Russians to act as they did, because the Germans did first.Alex

Müller: ... Außerdem bestand und besteht immer die Gefahr, Beifall von der falschen Seite zu erhalten...

Roberto,

let me reassure you that I appreciate your educated comments and that I was just dwelling on a point which in my eyes explains some of the fundamentals of the criticism that erupted in 1997 against H. Heer and finally led to the complete reconception of this exhibit in 2001:

It is necessary to talk about crimes conceived by the Wehrmacht leadership just as well as about execution of crimes by certain Wehrmacht units (take 707 ID) - not mentioning a couple of other aspects at the moment (POWs, pressing civilians for forced labour etc.), but if somebody talks about crimes of the Wehrmacht, as Heer actually did, you cannot avoid estranging members or relatives of those >95% that actually seem not to have been involved.

I cannot imagine that we would be on differing terms as for that just as much as I earlier received the impression that we agree on all major issues of the topic we could discuss here. As for third party comments, I go with Rolf-Dieter

observer

[Roberto]

Roberto, all I get from your statistics and bombast is that you think it was alright for the Russians to act as they did, because the Germans did first.

If so, you got me dead wrong.

I don't think anybody's crimes do in any way justify anyone else's.

[Alex F.]

Roberto, all I get from your statistics and bombast is that you think it was alright for the Russians to act as they did, because the Germans did first.

If so, you got me dead wrong.

I don't think anybody's crimes do in any way justify anyone else's.

Alright. Fair enough. Still, if I got that impression others may have as well. I agree, the Germans did nasty things, there's no denying that and I'm not going to try.

Still, the conduct of the Russians in eastern Germany was horrid... It made them no better than the regime they were fighting.

One could say that the bombing campaigns by the Brits and US against Germany and Japan (not to mention the occupied countries) were planned attacks on civilians, and I'd agree with that.

However... they had military goals and unfortunately killed civilians. What happened in Russia from the Germans and in Germany from the Russians was unnecessary and displayed the true moral fiber of the respective governments.

Note I am not comparing individual soldiers to their governments; such a comparison is unjust and unnecessary. Certainly some were, but the majority were not.

So, I'm not arguing your basic point... just the way you point to the Germans as the instigators.

The Russians, if they were truly a noble people, wouldn't have stooped to the same level.
Are we animals, or are we human beings? That is the question that should have been asked in East Prussia.

MHO

Alex

[atkif]

The Russians, if they were truly a noble people, wouldn't have stooped to the same level.
Are we animals, or are we human beings? That is the question that should have been asked in East Prussia

Alex

Why would you expect that Russian would have been morally unflawed.?
Russians are the same as everybody else with their own emotions,there own villians.Why would we expect just Russians to be absolutely fair ?
My father in law was a commander of a Russian platoon (in the rank of leutenant ).He related such a story. In his platoon there was a fellow whose whole family was burned alive by Germans in Belarussia .Once in Germany this guy when encountering some resistance from "Hitler Youth" threw several hand grenades into the house when the inhibitants refused to obey the order to get out. Many innocents died as the result.
My father in law said that he didn't persue to punish this private as his commander;he said that he didn't feel it would be morally right.
I didn't have any comments.Till now I have quite confounded feelings about this episode.
Morality is not always black and white area.

[Alex F.]

I stand by my opinion, war crimes are war crimes, no matter how "justified".

How is your father in law's soldier any better than the germans that burned your homeland? He's not. You're blinded to that by your own national pride, I think.

Both were wrong. Because the Russians won, noone said anything to them about their actions.

Alex

The Russians, if they were truly a noble people, wouldn't have stooped to the same level.
Are we animals, or are we human beings? That is the question that should have been asked in East Prussia

Alex

Why would you expect that Russian would have been morally unflawed.?
Russians are the same as everybody else with their own emotions,there own villians.Why would we expect just Russians to be absolutely fair ?
My father in law was a commander of a Russian platoon (in the rank of leutenant ).He related such a story. In his platoon there was a fellow whose whole family was burned alive by Germans in Belarussia .Once in Germany this guy when encountering some resistance from "Hitler Youth" threw several hand grenades into the house when the inhibitants refused to obey the order to get out. Many innocents died as the result.
My father in law said that he didn't persue to punish this private as his commander;he said that he didn't feel it would be morally right.
I didn't have any comments.Till now I have quite confounded feelings about this episode.
Morality is not always black and white area.

[atkif]

How is your father in law's soldier any better than the germans that burned your homeland? He's not. You're blinded to that by your own national pride, I think.

Both were wrong. Because the Russians won, noone said anything to them about their actions.

Alex I think you misunderstood my post. I wrote "I didn't have any comments.Till now I have quite confounded feelings about this episode"

However I could not say that while the Russians soldiers were also no angels they could be equated with Germans.
Germans after occupying the Soviet territories were not murdering people out of revenge spontaniously as the Russians did.
There were no plans and official approval to murder civilians from the Russian military or political top.
This guy whom I mentioned in the previous post was blinded by
hatred because all his family was murdered by the Germans.
What he did is not right.But he did it out of revenge.
Germans when invading Russia didn't have anything to be revengful for to Russians.
Again every murder of innocents is wrong ,I don't argue this.

[Alex F.]

My mistake, I apologize.


Alex

How is your father in law's soldier any better than the germans that burned your homeland? He's not. You're blinded to that by your own national pride, I think.

Both were wrong. Because the Russians won, noone said anything to them about their actions.

Alex I think you misunderstood my post. I wrote "I didn't have any comments.Till now I have quite confounded feelings about this episode"

However I could not say that while the Russians soldiers were also no angels they could be equated with Germans.
Germans after occupying the Soviet territories were not murdering people out of revenge spontaniously as the Russians did.
There were no plans and official approval to murder civilians from the Russian military or political top.
This guy whom I mentioned in the previous post was blinded by
hatred because all his family was murdered by the Germans.
What he did is not right.But he did it out of revenge.
Germans when invading Russia didn't have anything to be revengful for to Russians.
Again every murder of innocents is wrong ,I don't argue this.